The Science of Torture

[b]As I said earlier: you'll wear as many pairs of blinders as are necessary in order to cover for this administration, won't you?

Meanwhile you'll keep stomping your little feet,banging your head against the wall,hoping and praying that one of the wild goose chases that Drudge or Breitbart send you on will actually amount to something.

For the rest of us it's a never ending source of amusement.

happy jack

Posts : 5958

Subject: Re: The Science of Torture Fri 08 Feb 2013, 18:02

edge540 wrote:

happy jack wrote:

edge540 wrote:

Well yes indeed, it was great judgment on Barry's part, he did get bin laden ....

.... and he only needed to use a little bit of information derived through torture in order to get him.

Well no he did not.It's a shame you can't prove that nonsense, you have absolutely nothing to back that up...and keep those blinders on with your head in the sand, it looks good.

I don't need to prove that "nonsense".NBC and Politicsusa did it for me, no matter how badly you try to ignore it.

WASHINGTON — Intelligence garnered from waterboarded detainees was used to track down al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden and kill him, CIA Chief Leon Panetta told NBC News on Tuesday. “Enhanced interrogation techniques” were used to extract information that led to the mission’s success, Panetta said during an interview with anchor Brian Williams. Those techniques included waterboarding, he acknowledged.

Liar,Liar,Pants on fire. The story and link you originally posted was from http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2013/02/secretary-of-defense-panetta-admits-information-from-waterboarding-led-us-to-bin-laden-video/ not NBC or PoliticsUSA. You got that link directly from your cuckoo crackpot hero Drudge. Let me remind you of my response to your very First post on this latest wild goose chase. ....

Artie60438 wrote:

happy jack wrote:

It’s refreshing to see that your president, he of the pure and lily-white hands (figuratively, of course), is finally forced to admit that he used those hands to utilize and take advantage of torture in order to pull off the high point of his presidency – the killing of bin-Laden.Oh, my.[/i]

The Dumbest Man on the Internet resorts to a flat out lie today, and is rewarded with a headline link at Drudge Report: Defense Secretary Panetta Admits Information From Waterboarding Led US to Bin Laden (Video) | the Gateway Pundit.

Quote :

Yes, waterboarding worked. Today on Meet the Press Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta admitted that information gleaned from waterboarded detainees was used to track down al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden and kill him.

“The real story was that in order to put the puzzle of intelligence together that led us to Bin Laden, there were a lot of pieces out there that were a part of that puzzle. Yes, some of it came from some of the tactics that were used at that time, interrogation tactics that were used. But the fact is we put together most of that intelligence without having to resort to that.”

Jim Hoft is such an amazing dimwit that he actually includes the quote that exposes his own brazen lies.

First, Panetta did not even use the word “waterboarding,” and he certainly did not say that information from waterboarding “led to bin Laden.” Hoft simply made that up out of nothing. Panetta specifically said that most of the intelligence that led to bin Laden was put together without using torture.

Second, Panetta’s very next sentence, after the section that Hoft clipped for his misleading video, was:

Quote :

I think we could have gotten bin Laden without that.

This is an absolutely blatant, in your face example of how the right wing blogs tell each other lies, circulate them, and turn them into unquestionable articles of faith. It’s a microcosm of the reality-denying reactionary sickness at the heart of the conservative movement.

Here’s the clip from NBC of Panetta’s actual statement, including the critical sentence that Hoft edited out.

The Dumbest Man on the Internet resorts to a flat out lie today, and is rewarded with a headline link at Drudge Report:

And the dumbest poster on this message board swallows it hook,line,and sinker,the doubles down on it by making up another bald faced lie claiming the POTOS admitted to it despite the fact that POTUS was never even mentioned in the article or the attached video clip!

happy jack

Posts : 5958

Subject: Re: The Science of Torture Fri 08 Feb 2013, 22:41

Artie60438 wrote:

happy jack wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:

.... one of the wild goose chases that Drudge or Breitbart send you on will actually amount to something.

Liar,Liar,Pants on fire. The story and link you originally posted was from http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2013/02/secretary-of-defense-panetta-admits-information-from-waterboarding-led-us-to-bin-laden-video/ not NBC or PoliticsUSA. You got that link directly from your cuckoo crackpot hero Drudge. Let me remind you of my response to your very First post on this latest wild goose chase. ....

Artie60438 wrote:

happy jack wrote:

It’s refreshing to see that your president, he of the pure and lily-white hands (figuratively, of course), is finally forced to admit that he used those hands to utilize and take advantage of torture in order to pull off the high point of his presidency – the killing of bin-Laden.Oh, my.[/i]

The Dumbest Man on the Internet resorts to a flat out lie today, and is rewarded with a headline link at Drudge Report: Defense Secretary Panetta Admits Information From Waterboarding Led US to Bin Laden (Video) | the Gateway Pundit.

Quote :

Yes, waterboarding worked. Today on Meet the Press Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta admitted that information gleaned from waterboarded detainees was used to track down al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden and kill him.

“The real story was that in order to put the puzzle of intelligence together that led us to Bin Laden, there were a lot of pieces out there that were a part of that puzzle. Yes, some of it came from some of the tactics that were used at that time, interrogation tactics that were used. But the fact is we put together most of that intelligence without having to resort to that.”

Jim Hoft is such an amazing dimwit that he actually includes the quote that exposes his own brazen lies.

First, Panetta did not even use the word “waterboarding,” and he certainly did not say that information from waterboarding “led to bin Laden.” Hoft simply made that up out of nothing. Panetta specifically said that most of the intelligence that led to bin Laden was put together without using torture.

Second, Panetta’s very next sentence, after the section that Hoft clipped for his misleading video, was:

Quote :

I think we could have gotten bin Laden without that.

This is an absolutely blatant, in your face example of how the right wing blogs tell each other lies, circulate them, and turn them into unquestionable articles of faith. It’s a microcosm of the reality-denying reactionary sickness at the heart of the conservative movement.

Here’s the clip from NBC of Panetta’s actual statement, including the critical sentence that Hoft edited out.

The Dumbest Man on the Internet resorts to a flat out lie today, and is rewarded with a headline link at Drudge Report:

And the dumbest poster on this message board swallows it hook,line,and sinker,the doubles down on it by making up another bald faced lie claiming the POTOS admitted to it despite the fact that POTUS was never even mentioned in the article or the attached video clip!

The relevant quote in question was posted at both NBC and Gateway Pundit, and if I kept poking around, I would undoubtedly find the very same quote at some other sources as well. What the hell is your point?

"Enhanced interrogation techniques" were used to extract information that led to the mission's success, Panetta said during an interview with anchor Brian Williams. Those techniques included waterboarding, he acknowledged.

“Enhanced interrogation techniques” were used to extract information that led to the mission’s success, Panetta said during an interview with anchor Brian Williams. Those techniques included waterboarding, he acknowledged.

Incidentally, can you illustrate for me this trail of links showing that I accessed the gatewaypundit through Drudge?

happy jack

Posts : 5958

Subject: Re: The Science of Torture Sat 09 Feb 2013, 16:38

Artie60438 wrote:

Liar,Liar,Pants on fire. The story and link you originally posted was from http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2013/02/secretary-of-defense-panetta-admits-information-from-waterboarding-led-us-to-bin-laden-video/ not NBC or PoliticsUSA. You got that link directly from your cuckoo crackpot hero Drudge.

Does a link from this site meet your high journalistic standards?(Incidentally, can you illustrate for me this trail of links showing that I accessed the gatewaypundit through Drudge?)

Intelligence garnered from waterboarded detainees was used to track down al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden and kill him, CIA Chief Leon Panetta told NBC News on Tuesday."Enhanced interrogation techniques" were used to extract information that led to the mission's success, Panetta said during an interview with anchor Brian Williams. Those techniques included waterboarding, he acknowledged.

Artie60438

Posts : 9360

Subject: Re: The Science of Torture Sat 09 Feb 2013, 19:28

happy jack wrote:

(Incidentally, can you illustrate for me this trail of links showing that I accessed the gatewaypundit through Drudge?)[/b]

So it was just a coincidence that it was the headline story on Drudge at exactly the time you posted it? Then you want to claim that you found it somewhere else?

Your claim might be feasible but unfortunately you were too stupid to remember that less than 30 minutes after you posted it you pretty much admitted that you got it from Drudge. It wasn't until later that you came up with the story that you got it from somewhere else.

Quote :

Sun Feb 03, 2013 2:19 pm

happy jack wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:

happy jack wrote:

I don't know or care what someone named Jim Hoft said; I don't even know who he is.

By Michael White - Feb 17, 2013 12:32 AM CT “Zero Dark Thirty,” the best-reviewed film of 2012, has become an Oscar longshot because of a political backlash in Hollywood over its depiction of torture in the hunt for Osama Bin Laden. Since early January, Kathryn Bigelow’s critically praised movie has sunk to fifth from third among likely best-picture winners at GoldDerby.com, which ranks award prospects. Actors Ed Asner and David Clennon urged academy voters to snub the Sony Corp. film. Author Naomi Wolf called Bigelow “torture’s handmaiden” and compared her to Nazi propagandist Leni Riefenstahl. Jessica Chastain plays a member of the elite team of spies and military operatives stationed in a covert base overseas in "Zero Dark Thirty." The Columbia Pictures film opened Dec. 19.Jessica Chastain plays a member of the elite team of spies and military operatives stationed in a covert base overseas in "Zero Dark Thirty." The Columbia Pictures film opened Dec. 19. Photographer: Jonathan Olley/Zero Dark Thirty LLC via Bloomberg The outcry from Washington and influential industry voices has made “Zero Dark Thirty” a tough vote for left-leaning Hollywood. It’s led to a split between academy members disturbed by torture scenes that imply waterboarding and other harsh methods worked, and others who defend the filmmakers’ right to free speech and artistic freedom. “The general political persuasion in Hollywood has more to do with it than any particular actors,” said former Republican U.S Senator Fred Thompson, who’s appeared in dozens of films and TV shows including “Law & Order.” “If they perceive that this movie somehow adopts the Bush narrative, that could affect the movie.” Over eight days in December, “Zero Dark Thirty” was dubbed best picture by four groups, including the New York Film Critics Association, the National Board of Review and the Boston Film Critics Association. It was the top Oscar contender on the Metacritic site, which ranks films based on reviews.

Senate Questions

Then the U.K.’s Guardian published an article accusing Bigelow, the only woman to win an Oscar for directing, of justifying torture. On Dec. 19, U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein, joined by John McCain and Carl Levin, asked Sony Pictures to consider “correcting” the suggestion torture helped the CIA find bin Laden because it was inaccurate.

Don't like history?No problem - your government will "correct" it for you.

Then the U.K.’s Guardian published an article accusing Bigelow, the only woman to win an Oscar for directing, of justifying torture. On Dec. 19, U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein, joined by John McCain and Carl Levin, asked Sony Pictures to consider “correcting” the suggestion torture helped the CIA find bin Laden because it was inaccurate. [/i]

[b]Don't like history?No problem - your government will "correct" it for you.

Or live in a fantasy world on Planet Wingnuttia and believe that all dramatizations are 100% true.

Then the U.K.’s Guardian published an article accusing Bigelow, the only woman to win an Oscar for directing, of justifying torture. On Dec. 19, U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein, joined by John McCain and Carl Levin, asked Sony Pictures to consider “correcting” the suggestion torture helped the CIA find bin Laden because it was inaccurate. [/i]

[b]Don't like history?No problem - your government will "correct" it for you.

Or live in a fantasy world on Planet Wingnuttia and believe that all dramatizations are 100% true.

Are you in favor of your government "correcting" someone's artistic endeavor?

happy jack

Posts : 5958

Subject: Re: The Science of Torture Sun 17 Feb 2013, 21:39

Finally saw Zero Dark Thirty today.One of the more compelling characters was the one based on the interrogator who used the enhanced interrogation techniques, the ones Panetta admitted were essential to the mission.

”Yes, some of it came from some of the tactics that were used at that time, interrogation tactics that were used,” he admitted.

edge540

Posts : 1166

Subject: Re: The Science of Torture Mon 18 Feb 2013, 09:38

This guy?

...or this guy?

Heretic

Posts : 3094

Subject: Re: The Science of Torture Mon 18 Feb 2013, 11:15

happy jack wrote:

One of the more compelling characters was the one based on the interrogator who used the enhanced interrogation techniques, the ones Panetta admitted were essential to the mission.

Three questions: Which character and who was he based on? When did Panetta refer to said character? When did he say the intel was essential?

Your link answers none of those.

Artie60438

Posts : 9360

Subject: Re: The Science of Torture Mon 18 Feb 2013, 11:45

Heretic wrote:

happy jack wrote:

One of the more compelling characters was the one based on the interrogator who used the enhanced interrogation techniques, the ones Panetta admitted were essential to the mission.

Three questions: Which character and who was he based on? When did Panetta refer to said character? When did he say the intel was essential?

Your link answers none of those.

Tune in next week when Happy reviews "Argo", and declares the character,Lester Siegel,portrayed by Alan Arkin, as "compelling".The major role of producer Lester Siegel, played by Alan Arkin, is fictional.

happy jack

Posts : 5958

Subject: Re: The Science of Torture Mon 18 Feb 2013, 12:44

Artie60438 wrote:

The major role of producer Lester Siegel, played by Alan Arkin, is fictional.

The character I referenced is also fictional, hence my use of the word "character" rather than "real live person".

Heretic

Posts : 3094

Subject: Re: The Science of Torture Mon 18 Feb 2013, 13:01

There's nothing in the definition of the word "character" that implies that its fictional.

happy jack

Posts : 5958

Subject: Re: The Science of Torture Mon 18 Feb 2013, 16:18

Heretic wrote:

There's nothing in the definition of the word "character" that implies that its fictional.

There's nothing in the definition of the word "character" that implies that it is real.

Heretic

Posts : 3094

Subject: Re: The Science of Torture Mon 18 Feb 2013, 17:41

Really?

Quote :

char·ac·ter [kar-ik-ter]noun

1. the aggregate of features and traits that form the individual nature of some person or thing.2. one such feature or trait; characteristic.3. moral or ethical quality: a man of fine, honorable character.4. qualities of honesty, courage, or the like; integrity: It takes character to face up to a bully.5. reputation: a stain on one's character.

In no way, shape, or form does that definition support this:

happy jack wrote:

The character I referenced is also fictional, hence my use of the word "character" rather than "real live person".

Just understand that when we don't know wtf you're talking about, its no failure on our part, but the fact that you're talking nonsense.

happy jack

Posts : 5958

Subject: Re: The Science of Torture Tue 19 Feb 2013, 07:12

Heretic wrote:

Really?

Quote :

char·ac·ter [kar-ik-ter]noun

1. the aggregate of features and traits that form the individual nature of some person or thing.2. one such feature or trait; characteristic.3. moral or ethical quality: a man of fine, honorable character.4. qualities of honesty, courage, or the like; integrity: It takes character to face up to a bully.5. reputation: a stain on one's character.

In no way, shape, or form does that definition support this:

happy jack wrote:

The character I referenced is also fictional, hence my use of the word "character" rather than "real live person".

Just understand that when we don't know wtf you're talking about, its no failure on our part, but the fact that you're talking nonsense.

The definition of "character" in the context of this discussion pertains to a "character" in a movie.You full well know that, and I full well know that.You may stop pretending that you are retarded at any time.

edge540

Posts : 1166

Subject: Re: The Science of Torture Tue 19 Feb 2013, 12:20

happy jack wrote:

Finally saw Zero Dark Thirty today.One of the more compelling characters was the one based on the interrogator who used the enhanced interrogation techniques...

Interesting. No shit? you admire a fictional character in the movie who tortures people, and you find him inspiring and powerfully irresistible?...oh my.

You also a big fan of Dr. Mengele?

Artie60438

Posts : 9360

Subject: Re: The Science of Torture Tue 19 Feb 2013, 13:18

happy jack wrote:

Heretic wrote:

There's nothing in the definition of the word "character" that implies that its fictional.

[b]There's nothing in the definition of the word "character" that implies that it is real.

Yeah,but you already admitted that he's allegedly based on a real person.

happy jack wrote:

One of the more compelling characters was the one based on the interrogator who used the enhanced interrogation techniques,

happy jack

Posts : 5958

Subject: Re: The Science of Torture Tue 19 Feb 2013, 13:52

edge540 wrote:

happy jack wrote:

Finally saw Zero Dark Thirty today.One of the more compelling characters was the one based on the interrogator who used the enhanced interrogation techniques...

Interesting. No shit? you admire a fictional character in the movie who tortures people, and you find him inspiring and powerfully irresistible?...oh my.

You also a big fan of Dr. Mengele?

1. com•pel•ling /kəmˈpeliNG/Adjective1. Evoking interest, attention, or admiration in a powerfully irresistible way.2. Not able to be refuted; inspiring conviction.

Heretic wrote:

Quote :

char•ac•ter [kar-ik-ter]noun

1. the aggregate of features and traits that form the individual nature of some person or thing.2. one such feature or trait; characteristic.3. moral or ethical quality: a man of fine, honorable character.4. qualities of honesty, courage, or the like; integrity: It takes character to face up to a bully.5. reputation: a stain on one's character.

My goodness.You two have mastered the dictionary!By the way, edge - this is the part of the definition I'm referring to: Evoking interest

Artie60438 wrote:

Yeah,but you already admitted that he's allegedly based on a real person.

happy jack wrote:

One of the more compelling characters was the one based on the interrogator who used the enhanced interrogation techniques,

I would not be at all surprised to learn that he is based on a real person or a composite of several real persons.Would you?

edge540

Posts : 1166

Subject: Re: The Science of Torture Tue 19 Feb 2013, 14:28

happy jack wrote:

By the way, edge - this is the part of the definition I'm referring to: Evoking interest

Yes, I know. I find it interesting that a fictional character in the movie who tortures people, evokes your interest, attention, and admiration in a powerfully irresistible way.

Actually, I think it kind of twisted and weird that you would single out the fictional character in the movie who tortures people.

happy jack

Posts : 5958

Subject: Re: The Science of Torture Tue 19 Feb 2013, 15:14

edge540 wrote:

happy jack wrote:

By the way, edge - this is the part of the definition I'm referring to: Evoking interest

Yes, I know. I find it interesting that a fictional character in the movie who tortures people, evokes your interest, attention, and admiration in a powerfully irresistible way.

Actually, I think it kind of twisted and weird that you would single out the fictional character in the movie who tortures people.

1. com•pel•ling /kəmˈpeliNG/Adjective1. Evoking interest, attention, or admiration in a powerfully irresistible way.2. Not able to be refuted; inspiring conviction.

Allow me to point something out to you that you either missed or are deliberately lying about.The definition reads: